* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no pre cedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-60325

(Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM EDDIE MORGAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(1:92-CR-007-S-D)

October 27, 1995

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In his appeal from the order of the district court revoking

supervised release and imposing renewed incarceration, DefendantAppellant William Eddie "Bucky" Morgan contends that the government2

failed to pro ve by a preponderance of the evidence that he had

breached the terms of his supervised release, and that the district

c ourt erred by considering improper factors in imposing sentence

and by departing upwardly. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

I

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

E v ents leading to Morgan's finding himself on supervised

release are not germane to this appeal. It suffices that following

a period of federal incarceration Morgan was serving a three-year

term of supervised release, subject to both standard conditions and

special conditions. The latter included prohibitions from

possessing a firearm and having any contact or communication with

one Brenda Kay Buskirk.

About a year into Morgan's term of supervised release the

government moved to revoke it, alleging various assaults on other

women as well as possession of a firearm and possession of

marijuana. Following the revocation hearing the district court

found that the government had failed to prove the marijuana and

assault allegations by a preponderance of the evidence but had

proved violation of the special firearms condition of his

supervised release.

Based on a determination that the Guidelines did not

adequately cover Morgan's situation, together with evidence of a

nexus between his m ental problems and relational problems with

women, the district court determined that an upward departure was

necessary to accommodate a sufficiently long mental treatment to1 United States v. McCormick , 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir.

1995), petition for cert. filed

, (U.S. Aug. 21, 1995) (No. 95-

5662).

2 Id.

3 accommodate rehabilitation. The court sentenced Morgan to 24

months' imprisonment and ordered "that he be placed in a facility

which provides for intensive, structured mental health counseling."

Morgan timely appealed, asserting the errors described above.

II

ANALYSIS

"A district court may revoke a defendant's supervised release

if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition of

release has been violated." 1 A decision to revoke supervised

release is reviewed for a buse of discretion. 2 We have now

carefully reviewed the record in this matter and the applicable law

as set forth in briefs of counsel and as determined independently.

As a result of this review, we are satisfied that the district

court committed no reversible error. The evidence of Morgan's

firearms possession consisted largely of the test imony of Police

Officer Spradlin and one Becky Morgan, whose testimony the district

court credited. Such evidence is sufficient to meet the

pr eponderance test and demonstrate that Morgan had violated the

firearms condition of supervised release. The district court did

not abuse its discretion in revoking Morgan's supervised release

based on his violation of the firearms condition.

As noted, Morgan also challenged the district court's upward

departure to achieve a sentence of 24 months' imprisonment. As3 See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).

4 that sentence was within the statutory maxi mum, 3 it was not

unlawful. Our review of the district court's reasons for its

sentence shows that t he court considered not only Morgan's

rehabilitative needs but also his history of violence and

dysfunctional relationshi ps with women as well as the potential

threat he poses to women. As the court properly considered the

factors in accordance with § 3583(e), the sentence imposed is not

plainly unreasonable.

The court's revocation of Morgan's supervised release and its

imposition of the 24 months' term of imprisonment are, in all

respects,

AFFIRMED.